Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

I can see why the focus of rebuttal in this thread has been on the first premise, but the one people should be focusing on is the second. It's the one his entire argument is based on, yet he's very cleverly hiding it in the middle as if it's an axiom to draw attention away from it. Look how it reads when ordered this way:

See how much more it sticks out now? To get to God existing he must first establish that knowledge is possible, yet he can't do that because the "proof" that knowledge is possible is that God exists. It's utterly circular and therefore nonsensical.

I didnt even notice that. Good catch. His reply here should be pure gold.

Russell Humphreys

Humphreys' book, Starlight and Time, presents an alternative cosmological model to the Big Bang theory, that attempts to solve the Distant Starlight Problem. Its thesis is that the Earth is about six thousand years old, and the outer edge of an expanding and rotating 3-dimensional universe is billions of years old (when measured from earth). It proposes using the principles of relativity to postulate that time ticked at different rates during the universe's origin.[4] In other words, according to his theory, clocks on earth registered the six days of creation while those at the edge of the universe counted the approximately 15 billion years needed for light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth.[4] The model places the Milky Way galaxy relatively near the center of the cosmos.[5]

I'm still waiting for you to debunk radiometric dating. If you don't think radiometric dating is reliable, then provide me a study/data/credible opinions that suggest otherwise. I'll be waiting (probably for a very long time). I can't wait for the headline on CNN News. "Guy on football forum debunks radiometric dating." lol

Itís not up to me to prove radiometric dating doesnít work; itís up to you to establish that it has ever worked in the first place. Point to one instance where a rock of empirically known age was dated accurately using radiometric dating. If the method doesnít work on rocks of known age, then to assert that it works on rocks of unknown age is completely absurd. You yourself said science is based on skepticism, so I am merely being skeptical of your dating method until you can demonstrate it actually works.

It cant be real because if it were real then his God cant be real and if his God cant be real we cant know if caron dating is correct or not.

*Sigh* we are talking about radiometric dating ehre, not radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating cannot be used to date the earth. I canít believe you guys acted as if I was the ignorant one on this subject and then you all make such ridiculous mistakes as this. Additionally, there are plenty of Christians who believe the earthís billions of years old, so radiometric dating does nothing to disprove God. I just think itís not real science, thatís all.

Originally Posted by JackFinfan

You're right, I probably would have. But see that's why I love science. Science changes based on new information whereas religion clings to outdated beliefs.

That just proves right there science will never get you truth or even certainty whereas religion can.

Eventually though, even the church has to accept reality, ie Sun revolving around the Earth. Like I said before, even the church doesn't believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. You're clinging to a belief that even organized religion can't justify, pretty sad.

Whatís ďthe churchĒ? Are you really trying to use the Catholic Church as an arguing point against a Reformed Christian?

Originally Posted by JackFinfan

Even if it's only good enough to date in hundreds of thousands of years, it still debunks your 6000 years myth. Carbon dating is probably the least effective method, and it still contradicts your belief.

Radiocarbon dating does nothing to contradict scripture; it uses anti-biblical assumptions so it therefore cannot be used to prove the Bible is in error. You canít assume the Bible is wrong a priori and then use your results to try and prove the Bible is wrong, thatís begging the question and logically fallacious. How do you have any idea which dating method is the most accurate? You havenít even demonstrated that any of them are accurate using empirically verifiable methods.

Your delusion is self-evident to everyone other than yourself.

Even self-evident to those on here who thought radiocarbon dating was used to date the earth? Itís become rather apparent on here that everyday atheists are the ones who are truly ignorant when it comes to the topic and are merely accepting the age of the earth purely on blind faith.

There's no point continuing the conversation if you can't be reasoned with, & to be honest at this point I just feel bad for you.

Canít be reasoned with? On the contrary I can be, hence why I point out every time you use a logically fallacious or just irrelevant argument because I am a bit of stickler for proper reasoning. If you canít live up to such high standards and want to run away from the discussion, I completely understand.

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost. This can be seen in the concordia diagram, where the samples plot along an errorchron (straight line) which intersects the concordia curve at the age of the sample.

Yes, I already understand the theory behind the method, all I am asking for is that you actually demonstrate the method works in the real world. Provide me with a case where the method was used to date rocks of empirically verifiable age accurately. If you can accurately date rocks of known age first, then we can talk about the dates you get when you date rocks of unknown age, until that point your method is completely useless.

You're captaining a sinking ship, my funny friend.

Wikipedia? So now we are using user-generated sites to try and prove points? Nice.

Maybe after you demonstrate the method actually works, until then my ship is doing quite fine thank you.

Originally Posted by JackFinfan

Exactly Rob. The oldest rocks we've dated have been independently verified by using 4 or more different radiometric techniques. 4 completely different half-lives, yet they all say the same thing.

Wait, so if those methods yielded discordant dates then you would be forced to admit the method is garbage?

Evidence wise, that's as good as you're going to get.

Your ridiculously loose definition of ďevidenceĒ makes me cringe; thatís not evidence at all. You havenít demonstrated the method can date rocks of empirically known age, so scientifically I just canít accept your claim it magically works on rocks of unknown age. Prove it!

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

See how much more it sticks out now? To get to God existing he must first establish that knowledge is possible, yet he can't do that because the "proof" that knowledge is possible is that God exists. It's utterly circular and therefore nonsensical.

No, all you did was incorrectly alter the form of the argument from a valid syllogism into something that no longer contained an antecedent or consequent in premise 1. This does nothing to prove your point because the argument is no longer the same as the one I used. It would be like doing the followingÖ

P1 If light didnít exist, I could not see.P2 I can seeC. Therefore light exists.

Thatís a completely valid and sound syllogism; formally it is identical to mine. Now what you did wasÖP1 I can seeP2 For seeing to be possible for me, light must existC. light exists.

P1 no longer contains an antecedent or a consequent and P2 no longer either affirms the antecedent or denies the consequent. So you have merely rearranged the argument into an invalid syllogism and then acted as if that refuted my argument when my initial syllogism was completely valid. So you didnít prove anything either way.

If youíll notice though, the ďlightĒ syllogism above is very similar to mine; light existing is one of the necessary preconditions to seeing. So if a person can see they can have confidence light exists. God is one of the preconditions of intelligibility, so if a person can gain knowledge they can have confidence that God exists.

Originally Posted by tylerdolphin

I didnt even notice that. Good catch. His reply here should be pure gold.

You didnít notice it because there was nothing to notice; the argument the way I structured it was not only completely valid but as I also demonstrated it was completely sound.

Total DepravityUnconditional ElectionLimited AtonementIrresistible GracePerseverance of the Saints

You didnít notice it because there was nothing to notice; the argument the way I structured it was not only completely valid but as I also demonstrated it was completely sound.

I've talked to a guy who thinks he has super powers, a lady who thinks she has been abducted and impregnated by aliens, and a guy who is convinced that he is a demon sent up to earth to learn about humans, and you are still the most delusion person I've heard speak. These are people with severe schizophrenia, to the point where they are placed in assisted living facilities to keep themselves safe, and I have had more rational conversations with them than anyone has had with you in this entire thread...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

I wasn't sure if you wanted a response from me on that or not. The Humphrey's cosmological model certainly does work, it's not the one that I will usually appeal to but I don't see any issue with using it. It can get pretty complicated awfully fast though and my area of study was not in astrophysics in university so I prefer a couple of the other simpler models. Cheers!

Secondly, I didn’t realize you could hear people speak on discussion forums, lol.

and I have had more rational conversations with them than anyone has had with you in this entire thread...

You? Rational? So that is why your only response to everything I have said is a logically fallacious ad hominem argument? Such irrational responses to my points do little to back up your claim that you are even capable of having a rational conversation with anyone. You’re pretty small time my friend, I’d suggest studying up on logical reasoning before you try and play with the big boys :-P

Why do you simply refuse to add "In my opinion" to the end of that? You are not presenting a knowable fact with that statement. Its merely your opinion.

In your example we KNOW light is needed to see because it has been empirically proven. Your entire premise cant relate the the light/sight example because your statement is not verifiable logically or empirically.

Why do you simply refuse to add "In my opinion" to the end of that? You are not presenting a knowable fact with that statement. Its merely your opinion.

It’s not my opinion, it’s a demonstrated argument; I have demonstrated that God’s existence provides a cogent explanation for every one of the other preconditions of intelligibility. Nobody on here as even come close to providing an alternative explanation, until they do so my argument stands un-refuted.

In your example we KNOW light is needed to see because it has been empirically proven. Your entire premise cant relate the the light/sight example because your statement is not verifiable logically or empirically.

You’re getting too hung up on the content of the light syllogism and not the form of it, I said formally it is identical to mine, which it is. This means my syllogism is also valid. As to whether it is sound or not, I have presented an argument to back up its soundness, one that still remains un-refuted. None of the preconditions of intelligibility are verifiable empirically, however that doesn’t mean they are not verifiable logically, we do this using the indirect method that Kant developed. One can use this same method to prove that the God of scripture exists as I have done.

It’s not my opinion, it’s a demonstrated argument; I have demonstrated that God’s existence provides a cogent explanation for every one of the other preconditions of intelligibility. Nobody on here as even come close to providing an alternative explanation, until they do so my argument stands un-refuted.

Why can't no one have an answer? Like I said, just because you say God does these things, doesn't make it true. You don't have proof. There's a reason people ask "do you believe in God?", and not "do you know about God", because the existence of God can't be proven, nor disproven.